The above-entitled matter came on before the Honorable Keith Helgeson, Judge of District Court, in the Kandiyohi County Courthouse, Willmar, Minnesota, on the 6th day of June, 2024, beginning at 10:12 a.m.
APPEARANCES
The petitioner appeared through its attorneys Kristen Pierce and Rachel Molsberry, Kandiyohi County Attorney’s Office, P.O. Box 1126, Willmar, MN 56201
The mother Kayla Rekieta appeared personally, along with her attorney John Mueller, 125 South Sibley Avenue, Suite 2, Litchfield, MN 56355.
The father Nicholas Rekieta appeared personally, along with his attorney Dawn Weber, P.O. Box 303, New London, MN 56272
The children C******** Rekieta, A**** Rekieta, and S********** Rekieta appeared, along with their attorney Carter Greiner, 316 Becker Avenue SW, Suite 301, Willmar, MN 56201.
Kristi Barber, guardian ad litem, appeared personally.
Also present: Aleisha Sweep, social worker with Kandiyohi County Health and Human Services; foster parents; and paternal grandfather Robert Rekieta.
(WHEREUPON, the following proceedings were duly had):
THE COURT: All right. For the record then this is in the Matter of the Welfare of the Children of Kayla – is it Rekieta?
MS REKIETA: Um-hum.
THE COURT: Okay – Rekieta and Nicholas Rekieta. Court File is 34-JV-2496. This matter coimes on for a continued EPC Hearing and Admit-Deny Hearing.
And then can I just have all the parties identify themselves? And I’ll first start with Ms. Weber.
MS WEBER: Thank you. Dawn Weber, representing the mother [sic] Nicholas Rekieta.
MR. MUELLER: You represent the father, Nicholas Rekieta.
MS. WEBER: Oh, are you sure? No, just kidding, Father.
THE COURT: All right.
MS REKIETA: I’m Kayla Rekieta, the mother.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. MUELLER: John Mueller, representing the mother, Kayla Rekieta.
THE COURT: All right.
MR . GREINER: Carter Greiner. I represent the children C********, A****, and S***** who are seated behind me in the gallery.
THE COURT: Okay. And then also is the other two children. Are they present also, or is it just the three?
MR GREINER: To my knowledge, they’re not. I believe the other two are both under ten—
THE COURT: All right.
MR GREINER: --years of age.
THE COURT: And then Ms Barber, guardian ad litem.
MS. BARBER: Yes. Kristi Barber, guardian ad litem. And in the gallery we have the paternal grandfather,; and the maternal grandparents who are the foster parents; and then a support April Imholte.
THE COURT: All right. And then –
MS. SWEEP: Aleisha Sweep, Kandiyohi County Health and Human Services.
MS. MOLSBERRY: Rachel Molsberry, Assistant Kandiyohi County Attorney.
MS PIERCE: Kristen Pierce, First Assistant Kandiyohi County Attorney.
THE COURT: All right. Then I know this was set on for a continued EPC hearing. Is this going to continue to be a continued EPC, or –
MS. WEBER: Yes, it is.
THE COURT: Okay. And then, -- and then do – are we going to take testimony, Ms. Pierce?
MS PIERCE: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Then who do you want –
MS PIERCE: Ms. Sweep, Aliesha Sweep, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And Ms Sweep, do you want to stand, or do you want to come forward and then be sworn in? You can tell I’m not familiar with this courtroom. There is the witness stand. Do you want to swear her in?
(The court reporter delivered the oath to Ms. Sweep.)
ALEISHA SWEEP, having been first duly affirmed, was examined and testified on her affirmation as follows:
THE COURT: Then Ms. Pierce, you may proceed.
MS PIERCE: Thank you.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS PIERCE
Q. Can you please state your full name and spell your last name for the record?
A. Yep. Aliesha Sweep, S-W-E-E-P.
Q. And what is your occupation?
A. I am a children’s services supervisor.
Q. And what are your job duties as a children’s services supervisor?
A. I oversee child protection intake, investigation, and family assessment, as well as oversee the case aide duties that support those positions. I oversee the investigations and family assessments that are opened with Kandiyohi County Child Protective Services.
Q. How long have you worked for Kandiyohi County Health and Human Services?
A. I’ve worked for Kandiyohi County Health and Human Services for ten years.
Q. And how many of those years have you been working in child protection?
A. I have worked in child protection for eight years.
Q. Were you – did you receive a report involving Nicholas and Kayla Rekieta?
A. I did.
Q. And when was that?
A. That was on the 23rd of May.
Q. And can you explain what the report was?
A. The report was that law enforcement was going to the home of Nicholas and Kayla Rekieta to execute a search warrant. Upon executing that search warrant, they had found substances believed to be cocaine.
Q. And what was located in the home?
A. Located in the home was drug paraphernalia, firearms, ammunition, cocaine, and ketamine.
Q. Approximately how much cocaine was located?
A. Approximately 26.67 grams.
Q. So over 26 grams?
A. Yes.
Q. And was – how – are you aware of how that substance was identified?
A. I was just aware that it had been field tested.
Q. And did you go to the home?
A. I did.
Q. And what did you learn when you went to the home?
A. When I went to the home, I had learned that they were still in the process of the search; that when they entered the home, the home was very cluttered. It was hard to walk around the home without stepping on clothing, bedding, blankets.
I learned that they were in the process of locating safes and opening those saves in the home.
Q. And were there any children present?
A. Yes.
Q. Were all the children that are subject to this petition present?
A. No.
Q. Who was not present?
A. C******** was not present.
Q. And how were the children – were the children placed with a relative?
A. Yes.
Q. How were they placed with a relative?
A. Kayla was still at the home when I arrived – or Ms. Rekieta – when I arrived at the home. We had discussed that the children would be going on a law enforcement hold and coming into our custody for foster care placement. She had asked if they could go with family. I had stated, yes, we could vet family if she supplied names. She did supply her parents’ names of Dan and Sherri Sletta.
Q. And has that – have the children been in care since May 23 of 2024?
A. Yes.
Q. Since that time, have you – have there been any drug tests on the children?
A. Yes.
Q. What kind of drug test?
A. They did hair follicle drug testing.
Q. And what were the results of the hair follicle testing?
A. All children with the exception of A********* tested negative. A********* did test positive for cocaine.
Q. And approximately what was the level on that test?
A. Over 5,000.
Q. And what’s the cutoff?
A. Five hundred.
Q. Were you able to – can you explain, have Mr. and Mrs. Rekieta, have they been cooperating with drug testing for the agency?
MR. REKIETA: Objection, Your Honor –
MS. PIERCE: Objection.
MR. REKIETA: -- to the introduction of the drug test evidence.
THE COURT: Ms. Weber, do you have an objection?
MS WEBER: I plan on cross-examining Ms. Sweep on the drug test evidence. It has not been actually reviewed by a toxicologist. There hasn’t been enough time, so there is some question as to whether or not it’s accurate.
THE COURT: All right. I’m going to overrule, I’ll allow it; reliable hearsay can come in under the EPC rules. So, you may proceed, Ms. Pierce.
BY MS. PIERCE, CONTINUING:
Q. And – I’m sorry. I believe I was asking what was the cutoff on that?
A. Five hundred.
Q. Okay. And have Mr. and Mrs. Rekieta cooperated with drug testing for the agency?
A. They did do a drug – a hair drug – hair follicle drug test on May 30.
Q. And do you have the results of that test?
A. I do not.
Q. Subsequent to taking the test, was there any – anything done by either Mr. or Mrs. Rekieta?
A. Yes. I had received notification from Minnesota Monitoring that Mr. and Mrs. Rekieta have revoked the Release of Information for Kandiyohi County to do any further testing of them for drug testing.
Q. And have you been to the home of Mr. and Mrs. Rekieta?
A. I have.
Q. And when was that?
A. That was the twenty-eighth, I believed. It would have been the Tuesday following Memorial Day.
Q. And were you allowed in the home?
A. I was allowed into the home.
Q. And were there any rooms that you were not allowed access too?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you explain?
A. I had – Mr. Rekieta had wanted to show me the twenty-two – a piece of artwork that contained a .22-caliber empty shell casing that may have been also found next to a firearm. I followed Mr. Rekieta back to the bedroom as he had indicated it was in his and Kayla’s bedroom. When I got to the door, he had stated, “You do not need to come in here.”
He went in; shut the door; retrieved the artwork; and then came back out.
Q. Where were the controlled substances located during the search?
A. I believed they were located in the master bedroom of Mr. and Mrs. Rekieta, as well as a bathroom that adjoins that bedroom.
Q. Have there been any safety meetings with Mr. and Mrs. Rekieta?
A. Yes.
Q. When was that?
A. That was yesterday.
Q. As part of the safety meeting, were either Mr. or Mrs. Rekieta able to identify what any type of signs of use are?
A. I believe they were. I stepped out to go to the bathroom while that was being reviewed. I do know other staff who are present in the courtroom were also present in that safety meeting.
Q. Jave Mr. and Mrs. Rekieta been able to address how to plan around drug use or drugs found in the home?
A. No.
Q. And why not?
A. When we have questioned around what was found in the home, and around the drugs found in the home, or drug use, Mr. and Mrs. Rekieta have stated they do not want to answer any questions regarding that.
Q. Are there any services that the Court could order today that would allow the children to return home safely?
A. No.
Q. And why not?
A. We have not been able to establish sobriety by Mr. and Mrs. Rekieta. We have not been able to establish how those substances were found and got in to the home. So, we have been unable to do any safety planning around returning the children.
Q. And you indicated that the children are currently places with a relative. Is that the least restrictive and most home-like setting?
A. Yes.
Q. Do the children have a prior relationship with those relatives?
A. Yes.
Q. Are there any services or examinations that the Court could order today that would assist in starting the reunification process?
A. Yes. I believe that if the court would order chemical use assessments, or substance abuse assessments, as well as drug testing by Mr. and Mrs. Rekieta, as well as anybody who’s going to be in a caregiving role within their home or have access to the home where it may be unsupervised access, as well as complying with the agency in identifying how the children will not be exposed to further substances.
Q. What type fo visitation are they having with their children right now?
A. They are having supervised visitation, face-to-face contact, by our agency at this time. And they are having supervised phone contact and Zoom contact by the foster parents, as well as the paternal grandparents.
Q. What are your recommendations for ongoing visitation?
A. Our recommendations would be that the agency still continue to supervise visits.
Q. What was the purpose of yesterday’s safety meeting?
A. The purpose was to develop a plan around how to get from agency supervising to support supervising face-to-face contact.
Q. Were you – were the parties able to come up with a plan?
A. No.
Q. And what are the concerns around not having supervised visits at Harmony Visitation or at the agency right now?
A. The concerns would be that both paternal and maternal grandparents have stated they are unfamiliar with what somebody under the influence would look like. Both the paternal grandparents have stated that they do not believe that Mr. and Mrs. Rekieta use any type of substances, were not able to identify any warning signs or concerns that would make them feel like they were using substances.
And so, it – it is the agency’s stance that there needs to be more education around how to identify those things and to ensure that the children are not around somebody who’s actively using.
Q. Have you – are you aware if either Mr. or Mrs. Rekieta have made any admissions to using controlled substances?
A. They have not directly made admissions to me. I did observe during time in the court hallway at the previous hearing when Mrs. Rekieta was hugging C********, Mrs. Rekieta told C******** that, there are the consequences of our actions.
Q. Would returning the children to their parents at this – at this point be contrary to their wellbeing and welfare?
A. Yes.
MS PIERCE: I don’t have any other questions. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Ms. Barber, do you have any questions for the witness?
MS. BARBER: No, Your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Then, Ms. Weber?
MS WEBER: Thank you, Your Honor.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MS: WEBER:
Q. Have you had an opportunity to see some drug testing that Mr. Rekieta did yester?
A. That was shown to me when it was handed to Ms. Pierce in the hallway.
Q. All right. And it’s a negative for everything except alcohol. Are you aware – aware of that?
A. Correct.
Q. So, that is some indicia of Mr. Rekieta’s sobriety, correct?
A. It may be.
Q. Well, do you – it was done at Minnesota Monitoring. Do you believe that there’s a problem with the testing, or –
A. No, it just – it doesn’t state what specimen was tested.
Q. So, if we got something that was more – that showed that was urine that was tested, is that what you’re looking at, that it was a UA versus something else?
A. Yeah. Because then I would be able to establish kind of the timeframe of what I know testing is indicative of.
Q. And are you a certified toxicologist?
A. No.
Q. I understand that you do get some training as – is your role as a social worker, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. But you are not qualified to offer an expert opinion on drug testing and drug testing results; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. You mentioned – or you testified, excuse me, that you first came into the home. Was that during the process of the search when folks were in there searching?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Kind of a chaotic scene.
A. Kind of.
Q. And you said that all the kids were there except C********; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Did – did you at that time know which child was which?
A. No.
Q. Okay. And so if I were to tell you that S*****wasn’t there, would you have any reason to doubt that?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Why is that?
A. Because as the children – the four children were sitting outside talking while we were – while Ms. Banks was inside with Ms. Rekieta gathering belongings. I had talked to the children, asked them their names, asked them if there was any additional things that they needed from the home before leaving the residence, and S***** was there.
Q. Is it possible that when the search started, S***** wasn’t there?
A. I cannot speak to that. I was not there.
Q. So, by the time you got to the children that were talking outside, it’s possible that not all of those children were there when the warrant was actually executed. Correct?
A. Correct. I can speak to who was there when I arrived.
Q. And do you know how far into the search these folks were by the time you got there?
A. I do not know how far they were into the search.
Q. And you said that they had located and were opening safes; is that correct?
A. While we were at the residence, yes.
Q. So, do you know where – for example, this cocaine, where was this located in the home?
A. I do know it was located – they had found it in the master bedroom on the nightstand, is what I was informed when the report came in.
Q. Okay. But you’re relying on the report of someone else; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you’ve been to the home now since the drugs have been eliminated from the home; correct?
A. Since the warrant was executed.
Q. Is – and when you – and I know you didn’t get to every access, all access, but from what you saw, were there any drugs laying around?
A. I had access to the kitchen, living room, dining room area, and the hallway area on the main level of the floor. I did not see any drugs in those areas at the time I was there.
Q. Okay. What about drug paraphernalia?
A. No.
Q. Was it clean?
A. Yes.
Q. No clothes laying around?
A. No.
Q. And I know sometimes when we suspect that there is drug use going on, we look at the condition of the house. Is that true?
A. Yes.
Q. And were the conditions of the home at that time suspicious to you of possible drug use?
A. I did not see any drug paraphernalia or substances.
Q. Okay. Was there any food left laying around, dirty dishes?
A. Not that I saw.
Q. You were in the kitchen.
A. Correct.
Q. And ore of the things that you had mentioned was that the safety people, in this case the grandparents, need more education on what use looks like.
A. Yes. And somebody under the influence.
Q. Okay. Have you started that?
A. We have started with what does – what do they know of what it looks like, what has been their – I’ve talked with what has been their experience with drug use, as well if they know anybody who uses any substances.
Q. And when you asked the question, do you know anyone that uses substances, did they mention Mr. Rekieta?
A. No.
Q. As far as the statement that you overheard, allegedly, Ms. Rekieta telling C********, “the consequences of our actions,” that’s pretty broad. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. There’s a lot going on in this petition. Agree?
A. Correct.
Q. So you’re assuming that it was something to do with drug use. Correct?
A. Possibly.
Q. Okay. But you don’t have any evidence of that, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Do you have, or your agency have, any evidence that Mr. Rekieta is a drug user?
A. Not at this time.
MS WEBER: That is all I have. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Mueller, any questions you have?
MR. MUELLER: Thanks, Your Honor.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR MUELLER:
Q. Ms Sweep, you would agree our goal and objective is to get the children back in the home as quickly and as safely as possible.
A. Correct.
Q. So, if the foster parents, maternal grandparents, were willing to do this, they were willing to move into that home today, would it be safe to place the kids in the home with them in that home?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. One of the children tested positive for cocaine. That child has delied using any substances or cocaine.
Q. And that’s that only reason you would object to that?
A. Correct; as well as safety planning around Mr. and Mrs. Rekieta’s access to that home.
MR MUELLER: Thank you. That’s all I have, Judge.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Greiner, any comments – or any questions?
MR. GREINER: Yes.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR GREINER:
Q. Ms. Sweep, to your knowledge, the last time that you actually have proof there was drugs in the home, at least in the form of so-called reliable hearsay, is from May 23 of 2024.
A. Correct.
Q. Which, just looking at my Outlook calendar, is approximately two weeks ago today.
A. Correct.
Q. You agree that the parents have a pretty serious criminal matter pending.
A. Correct.
Q. They were charged criminally as a result of this.
A. Yes.
Q. And – but they have a fundamental constitutional right under the – to not incriminate, self incriminate, under our Minnesota and U.S. Constitutions.
A. Correct.
Q. And you would agree that they find themselves in a very potentially untenable situation of not wanting to compromise their criminal case, but also wanting to have their children back, but faced with an untenable issue of cooperating potentially at the expense of self-incriminating themselves.
A. Correct.
Q. And to your knowledge, as of today, there’s no proof that the home is still cluttered or hard to walk around.
A. Correct.
Q. No evidence that A********* has been exposed to cocaine since the search two weeks ago.
A. Correct.
Q. You do agree that Minnesota Monitoring is the gold standard UAs for drug testing and relied upon by both Kandiyohi County Community Corrections and Kandiyohi County Health and Human Services?
A. Correct.
Q. Would you agree that getting up to, at least the basics of signs of intoxications, whether cocaine or any other substance, could at least – one could get a working knowledge very quickly by simply Googling the issue and watching a few YouTube videos, perhaps in as short as 30 minutes?
A. Possibly.
Q. From the Grandparents’ perspective, did they say anything about who they have witnessed being under the influence?
A. They have not seen anybody to their knowledge under the influence, for the paternal grandparents.
Q. Could you be more specific of they’ve never seen anyone ever under the influence, of what?
A. Any illegal substances that would not be prescribed to them.
Q. Did they talk about recognizing the signs of intoxication of alcohol?
A. That was discussed during the safety meeting yesterday, and then I had stepped out.
Q. Would you agree that the grandparents were the ones that raised the parents of the – at least one of the parents of the children?
A. You’re asking if they’re their parents?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. Yes. They’re the ones who raised them. That’s what I’m asking.
A. That’s my understanding, yes.
Q. So, they have decades of experience being parents.
A. Correct.
Q. And from that perspective, are experts in what is appropriate parenting conduct.
A. Correct. Well, I wouldn’t say experts, but –
Q. What would you say?
A. I would say that they are skilled in what would be parenting conduct.
Q. Would you agree that they are skilled in recognizing immediately what is inappropriate parenting?
A. I can’t speak to that.
Q. In the context of grandparents supervising visitation or supervising the children in the context of Mom and Dad, would you agree that while they may not have expert knowledge of recognition of every controlled substance that parents could potentially take, that they would be extremely skilled in recognizing whether any sort of drug use was prejudicing or otherwise affecting otherwise appropriate parenting behavior?
MS PIERCE: I’m going to object to that as speculative. She’s already said they don’t – they don’t know the signs of being under the influence.
THE COUT: Yeah. I’m going to sustain that. Let’s move on.
BY MR. GREINER, CONTINUING:
Q. You would agree that the best recognition for evidence of intoxication is positive drug tests.
A. I think that’s a form of recognition.
Q. Well, would you agree that if the parents are consistently providing negative UAs, that’s effectively conclusive evidence that they’re not using and not under the influence?
A. I would state that a US has a cutoff, and drug testing has a cutoff.
Q. And those cutoffs are in place, recognizing – for a reason, Right?
A. It does not mean abstinence.
Q. I am talking about the issue of under the influence. You would agree that if they are consistently providing negative UAs for whatever substance being tested, that that is very strong evidence of not being under the influence.
A. It would be, I would say, corroborating evidence, but there are other things that demonstrate being under the influence.
Q. So, you disagree – if I’m hearing your correctly, are you disagreeing that negative UAs are very strong evidence of abstinence?
A. I would say UAs, as well as behavior. That if the person is using, that why we go through in a safety meeting what the red flags, what the triggers, may be.
Q. My question is, do you agree or disagree that negative UAs are strong evidence of abstinence?
A. I would say, yes, then.
Q. That you. So, in terms of a safety plan, if I’m hearing you correctly, what you’re looking for as part of the plan is a Minnesota Monitoring UAs –
A. Correct.
Q. – is part because they’re going to show almost conclusively one way or the other whether there’s drug use going on.
A. Correct.
Q. A chemical use assessment, follow recommendations.
A. Correct.
Q. And a safety – what – what other specifics would you need in place before being in a position to recommend the children going home?
A. So, as part of the safety meeting, we go through what somebody would look like under the influence, specifically what –
Q. In terms of grandparents or anyone else being able to recognize them.
A. Yes.
Q. And how long would that take, once you sit down, to give that education?
A. I cannot speak to how long that would take.
Q. Well, can you estimate? Are we talking an hour? Are we talking a three-week course? What are we talking about?
A. I would say an hour, hour and a half. That’s typically how long a safety meeting would be.
Q. And you’d be willing to give priority to have that safety meeting if, and assuming, the parents and grandparents are willing to participate in it?
A. Yes, we did that yesterday.
Q. Well, would you be willing to have another one expedited if they came to the position of wanting to participate is that at a level that you think is necessary?
A. I say – I would say we can expedite it, but it is going to be contingent on being able to pull together a facilitator.
Q. Back to Mr. Mueller’s plan, to the extent that grandparents are living in the home, what would stop if we give them their one-hour education and sort of take into account that they’re certainly skilled at recognizing appropriate parenting behavior that they’re not in a position to do two things; one, monitor, make sure parenting interaction is appropriate; and two, make sure there’s no drugs there?
A. Um-hum.
Q. You agree the grandparents would know, be able to recognize, as – arguable as well as you, whether they’re seeing something that’s suspicious that may be drugs?
A. Yes. And then the – the appropriate cleaning, taking care of to rempve any residual exposure.
Q. Have -- have you talked to grandparents about that? At least I was informed, by the kids’ understanding anyway, is that grandparents went through that house with parents thoroughly to clean it out.
A. Okay.
Q. Is that your understanding?
A. I do know they were a part of cleaning up after the warrant was executed.
Q. If and assuming that’s true, that would strongly suggect, at least at that time, no more drugs present in the house.
A. Yes. However, I did not smell any bleach when I was in there, an that would be a component of wiping every surface down with bleach as far as walls, countertops.
Q. All right. One moment. Besides the CUA, drug testing, safety plan, is there anything else that you need before you’re in a postion to recommend the children – the grandparents being able to move in at parents’ home and/or the children being able to return home without grandparents?
A. We would need – if the grandparents were to move into the residence of the children with the children without Mr. and Mrs. Rekieta in the home, we would also need to come up with a plan of how their access to the home would be restricted. Therefore, their access wouldn’t be unsupervised.
Q. All right. I am talking about a situation where parents have continual access but effectively under the direct supervision of grandparents. Is there anything else that you would need in place that you haven’t already said?
A. We would need to know, like I said, how the arrangements would tka e place when grandparents are unable to provide that supervised contact.
Q. Right now, the children are living 24/7 with grandparents.
A. Yes.
Q. Uncle’s giving respite.
A. No.
Q. Where are the two youngest children right now?
A. They are – yes, they are in the care of another family member.
Q. Any reason that when grandparents leave, if they would need to leave the residence with parents still there, that they couldn’t just take the kids with them and/or get uncle involved to assist?
A. Yes. But when grandparents sleep t, they are not able to supervise.
Q. Okay. Is there anything else that you’d need in place before grandparents can move in, if that – if that’s where – where we go and/or kids move back home?
A. I would have to do further consultation with the agency that would be all that I am aware of at this time without consulting with the agency further regarding that.
MR GREINER: I don’t have any other questions.
THE COURT: All right. Then, Ms. Pierce, any follow-up questions?
MS PIERCE: Does Miss –
THE COURT: Pardon?
MS. PIERCE: Oh, no. She already passed. Okay.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. PIERCE:
Q. I just want to clarify a couple of things with you. So, any idea where Mr. and Mrs. Rekieta would move to if they were not in their home?
A. They have not stated. I know they own a second residence that is – I’ve -- I have been giving – given conflicting information on that. I believe, according to GIS, it is on the same property as the family home.
Q. And has anybody been able to look at that home to see if it would be safe?
A. No.
Q. Now, Mr. Greiner kept talking about consistent UAs. Does that agency, before they would look to family supervision, want demonstrated sobriety?
A. Yes.
Q. Is – what is demonstrated sobriety?
A. We had asked for identifying what someone would look like under the influence, what they may look like under the influence if they are using cocaine or any other nonprescribed substances, as well as 60 days of negative drug tests.
Q. And then you did see a drug test that the parents took yesterday. Is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. Is that the final confirmation?
A. It does not look to be so. There’s no quantitative levels on that. It is just a positive or a negative.
Q. What is your understanding of the UA process?
A. The UA process, typically they do a quick test at Minnesota Monitoring which will come – show a negative or a positive. If it is positive, then it is sent off to a lab for futhre confirmation fo what that level is, and if that level is at the threshold over the cutoff.
Q. There has been a lot of talk about whether HHS has any evidence that Mr. Rekieta is a drug user. What is the agency’s concern?
A. Our concern is that the children were found to be living in an environment where there were drugs and drug paraphernalia found that they could access, as well as in their residence. And our concern is that the children had access to those substances.
Q. If the grandparents were able to move into the Rekietas’ home, would that present any type of licensing issue?
A. Yes.
Q. What type of issue?
A. The – the foster home cannot – the license foster home cannot be the home that of which the children were removed from.
Q. And what impact does the licensing issue have on placement?
A. It would mean that the home could not be licensed. Therefore, the people residing in that home would not be able to get licensed, and the children could not be placed with them.
MS PIERCE: Nothing further, Your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. Any brief follow up, Ms. Barber?
MS BARBER: No, Your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: Ms. Weber?
MS WEBER: Yes.
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MS: WEBER:
Q. Ms. Sweep, what protocol, cleaning protocol, have you given the Rekietas as far as the bleach and whatnot?
A. I have not given the Rekietas any protocol at this time. Part of that is because of the fact that every time I’ve tried to address even what substance was there, they have said that they won’t even discuss that and that they don’t necessarily believe that it was even in their home.
Q. If it – well, as Mr. Greiner pointed out, they are facing criminal charges. You understand that.
A. Correct.
Q. And so, do you blame them for needing to be vey careful about what they tell you?
A. Are you asking my opinion?
Q. Well, are you blaming them? Are you somehow throwing them, quote/unquote, “under the bus” because they aren’t being as honest as you would like?
A. I can state somebody’s cooperation level –
Q. Okay.
A. – and if they are compliant with the questions being asked.
Q. But if your questions that you’re asking would potentially implications or worsen their – their situation in their criminal case, you don’t – that – that’s not an issue for you?
A. I didn’t say that wasn’t an issue. I’ve worked around that many times with people that I’ve worked with.
Q. Okay. So – so why have you not provided them even with a sheet of paper that says, here’s what you need to do to remediate the home so that we the agency are happy?
A. Um-hum. I would want to walk through there and let them know what surfaces to clean, how to clean each surface. I have not been able to walk through the home.
Q. I understand that you did have a – you stopped y the home, and you weren’t able to get into the master bedroom. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And if the Rekietas allow you to go through the home, would that alleviate some of your concerns?
A. It would mean that I could provide them with a list of how to clean each surface.
Q. Okay. And you understand that when you showed up at that time, they were actually on their way to go post bond.
A. I do.
Q. And that time was an issue.
A. Correct; to which I had told Mr. and Mrs. Rekieta to let me know – they wanted to seek – sought their counsel before talking with me. They have stated – and I told them I could come back to the home; we could meet at the agency before court; or meet here before court.
After that court hearing, they had stated they wanted their counsel present at all meetings. So, I have not been able to coordinate meeting at their home with their counsel.
Q. Okay. And so, you haven’t gotten any voicemails from the Rekietas, is what you’re saying.
A. I have received one voicemail – no, I take that back – maybe two to which I have responded. The one I received yesterday requesting the release to Minnesota Monitoring as well as – from Mr. Rekieta – as well as his request for the release of information that has signed for me for not only the county attorney’s office. I did not because by the time I had received that voicemail – or listened to that voicemail – I had already distributed that to the county attorney’s office and received the emails from both you and Mr. Mueller requesting that.
Q. And as far as this second residence, I think Ms. Pierce had asked you whether you ha d a chance to go through that home. Correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And you -- you have not.
A. I have not.
Q. And so, if you were to be able to do a walk-through of that residenc e and maybe physically see for yourself exactly how far these homes are from each other, would that help with – alleviate any concerns the agency has?
A. I would have to take that back to the agency and consult with the agency.
Q. How far apart do these residences need to be?
A. That I cannot speak to. I, again, would need to consult with the agency of what the agency’s stance would be.
Q. Are you afraid that somehow they’re going to sneak back into the house?
A. There are concerns that they would have access to the children unsupervised.
Q. Okay. And you have – the oldest is how old? Sixteen?
A. Sixteen. Yeah.
Q. And what concerns do you have of him having visits with his parents unsupervised, or even supervised with a grandparent?
A. They are – there are visits that are supervised by the grandparent currently.
Q. Okay. And how about unsupervised visits with the oldest and the parents? What concerns are there?
A. Our concerns would be, again, just him being in a position where he would be unsafe or endangered as he was in a residence where he was unsafe.
Q. So, if they’re in this second residence and you’ve gone through and you’ve deemed it safe, how would it be unsafe?
A. With the parents?
Q. Um-hum
MS PIERCE: Objection. Speculative.
MS WEBER: Well, this is about safety.
THE COURT: I’ll allow her to answer it, but let’s move on.
BY MS WEBER, CONTINUING:
Q. Did you understand the question?
A. No. Can you repeat it?
Q. Let me restate – let me rephrase that. So, we’ve been talking about the parents possibley moving to this second residence, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And there are concerns of safety if the children can somehow make their way over to that residence unsupervised. Is that – would that be accurate?
A. There’s also concerns that Mr. and Mrs. Rekieta would have access to that home unsupervised and have access to the children unsupervised.
Q. Okay. And if it were – and I’m speaking only of the oldest child – what safety concerns would there be if he were to go over to the second residence unsupervised and talk to his parents?
A. I would say we would need to have demonstrated sobriety at this point by the parents --
Q. Okay.
A. – to ensure that he’s not being left with people who are actively using –
Q. Okay.
A. – or actively under the influence.
Q. But you’re – you have no proo that either parent has used. Right?
A. I have no proof that there were – that they’ve used those substances found in their home.
Q. Okay. So, you want them to disprove something that hasn’t even been proven?
A. I also have no proof that they haven’t used.
Q. Okay. But you want them to continue proving that they aren’t using.
A. If we were to be supplied a negative hair drug test, that would provide proof that the parents haven’t used those substances.
MS WEBER: That’s all the questions I have.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Mueller.
MR. MUELLER: Thanks, Your Honor.
RECROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. MUELLER:
Q. Ms. Sweep, you stated earlier that with regards to Mr. Rekieta’s drug use, your main concern was that there were drugs and drug paraphernalia in the home to which the children could have had access. Correct?
A. And that – well, and that the parents would be using those drugs, yes.
Q. So, we’ve alleviated that concern, haven’t we? Didn’t they take all of the drugs and drug paraphernalia out of the house?
A. They did. They parents have had access to that house since those drugs were removed.
Q. And you’re concerned that there’s drugs and drug paraphernalia back in the home?
A. I don’t have proof that there’s not.
Q. Okay. And then with regards to the cleaning, you’re not suggesting that we do environmental testing for contamination, are you?
A. No.
MR MUELLER: Thank you. That’s all I have.
THE COURT: Mr. Greiner, briefly.
RECROSS EXAMINATION
BY MR. GREINER:
Q. Ms. Sweep, you said the grandparents couldn’t be placed – or the children couldn’t be placed with the parents with the grandparents as being the foster care. They could be placed back with the parents and grandparents being on side, not in their – any capacity to be foster care providers, but rather just to be grandparents supervising which, as a practical matter, would have the same effect. Do you agree with that?
A. I would agree that’s a possibility. I don’t believe that the agency would support that at this time.
Q. Well, it sounds like there’s really no situation or circumstance that the agency would support that grandparents being in the home at this time.
A. The children being in the home at this time.
THE COURT: Is that a question, Mr. Greiner, or is it a statement?
MR GREINER: Yes.
THE COURT: Question?
MR MUELLER: Actually, it wasn’t.
MR GREINER: Well, it was – it was a statement, but in the form – I -- I can put a question mark at the end of it. Ms. Sweep took it as a question, then I meant it as a question.
I don’t have any other questions or statements.
THE COURT: All right.
EXAMINATION BY THE COURT
Q. Ms. Sweep, I just have one question. I just want to clarify, So, the parents have revoked releases. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. All the releases to the agency and to Minnesota Monitoring. Right?
A. The – they have revoked the release at Minnesota Monitoring. The – the revocation states that they revoke their release of their – of their information to Kandiyohi County Health and Human Services, any entity associated with Kandiyohi County Health and Human Services, any staff, as well as Ms Pierce and the county attorney’s office.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You may step down.
